Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hits or Misses: Who is Your Website's Audience?

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the interesting-informationo dept.

The Internet 146

securitas writes "The Christian Science Monitor's Gregory M. Lamb wrote a story interesting to anyone who runs a website: How do you accurately and reliably measure the audience for your website? From the article: 'Most websites have no idea how many people view their content. This inherent fuzziness is causing problems for commercial websites, especially online publications desperate to make money from Internet advertising... How can you charge for ads when it's nearly impossible to tell advertisers how many people will see them?' The article discusses the flaws and problems with Nielsen/NetRatings and comScore Media Metrix - they grossly undersample workplace users - and the rise in the number of sites requiring user registration."

cancel ×

146 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

As Ty Webb would say... (5, Funny)

Sqwubbsy (723014) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483654)

By height.

Stupid crackhead mods (-1, Offtopic)

AriesGeek (593959) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483818)

This is about +2 Funny, not 0 Offtopic. The problem is that the mods here are all little kiddies who have never seen such classic movies and have no idea what it is the post is about.

For those of you who don't know, it's from Caddyshack.

Ty Webb: Oh, I don't keep score
Caddy: So how do you measure yourself against other golfers?
Ty Webb: By height.

And if you RTFA, it's not offtopic

Re:Stupid crackhead mods (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483903)

Yeah, I wish there was a way to rate the moderaters. That way they could loose their plus/minus adjustments if they are too stoopid too many times. Each registred user should have a change to agree or disagree with the current rating to give the moderators a +- score.

Re:Stupid crackhead mods (2, Informative)

FesterDaFelcher (651853) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484233)

and they could call it metamoderation [slashdot.org] ? Yeah, they should implement that.

Re:Stupid crackhead mods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483978)

This is about +2 Funny, not 0 Offtopic. The problem is that the mods here are all little kiddies who have never seen such classic movies and have no idea what it is the post is about.

If you think Caddyshack is a "classic" then it's you who is probably a "little kiddie." It's a pretty funny film but certainly not a classic!

Re:Stupid crackhead mods (1, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484208)

If you think Caddyshack is a "classic" then it's you who is probably a "little kiddie." It's a pretty funny film but certainly not a classic!

By actual poll of caddies Caddyshack is the best movie ever made about Caddies. That meets the definition of classic.

Caddyshack II was voted the worst movie about caddies.

Of course they are also the only two movies ever made about caddies, but we'll overlook that for now.

Personally I'm an officiando of dancing gopher puppets, so it's Caddyshack all the way, the undisputed classic of the genre.

Everybody! "I'm alright. . . "

KFG

xxx (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483668)

Fisrt POst!!

ROB MALDA PLEASE READ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483679)

I HOPE YOU FALL OFF OF A CLIFF

FP btw

fsfsdfjklsdjfklsdjaklfsdjaklfjklasd;

Kathleen Malda's pussy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483712)

Is it good or is it whack?

OMG IT RETURN OF TEH SUMMERTIME CLASSICS TROOLS!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483865)

Not too hard (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483680)

  1. Cookies
  2. IP addresses
  3. Mandatory registration

Re:Not too hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483772)

1) sorta

2) seriously? How bout NAT? or Spoofing?

3) fakename@fakeaddress.com yeah, that'll help you track them eh?

Thanks for playing.

Re:Not too hard (4, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483801)

Mandatory reg. puts people off using the site in the first place (Why register if you can see the content.. If you can't see the content who knows if its worth registering for?).

IP addresses is half the problem (everyone behind one company firewall looks like 1 user).

Cookies are ok so long as your users are ok with you "tracking their browsing habits".

Its a tricky puzzle...

Re:Not too hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483904)

have Webserver server logs gone out of style?

if the ad didn't get served up, then they didn't see it.
if the ad did get served up, then they might have seen it.

Re:Not too hard (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483908)

1. I don't like being tracked, and trust AdAware and misc tools to rid me of those evil-doers. Plus I clean out my Cookies and temp files occasionally.

2. Dynamic IP's, Proxies, and Gateways.

3. Not that again; Everyone hates signing up somewhere before getting in, and being dissapointed at the content. Repeat this over and over. You just walk away when you have to register after a while, cause you simply don't want all your info on webpages you've abandomed. (or don't trust your information, you know those tricky checkboxes and agreements noone ever reads.)

Those methods could work, but not in all cases.

use cookies? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483699)

I always just set a cookie with a tracking ID, and then use that to keep track of the anon user. counting the number of tracking cookies given out each day, and the time they were used for seems to work sufficiently for me... or is there some problem with that I don't know about?

Re:use cookies? (3, Informative)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483765)

Only when you consider browsers that let you reject cookies, such as Firefox. But then, that's more the web developer's problem than mine, since I'd just as soon remain anonymous.

Re:use cookies? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483953)

Don't forget, a lot of people who use spyware tools like adaware and spybot delete tracking cookies on a regular basis, further skewing results.

But do Firefox users look at ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9484478)

As noted, people who use quality browsers and have them set to reject cookies will be undercounted. However, this may provide a more accuracte count of the number of people who look at ads. What percentage of firefox users have set their browsers to block ads from doubleclick?

Re:use cookies? (1, Troll)

Seth Finklestein (582901) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483774)

I hereby demand that you post the URLs of all web sites that you administer. Cookies represent a clear and present danger to the privacy of all Internet users. By utilizing this widely despised and often-disabled "feature" of insecure browsers like Internet Explorer, you are contributing to the worsening of the global Internet.

I'd like to declare a boycott, starting now, of all web sites that use this experimental and detrimental new technology.

Re:use cookies? (4, Informative)

Stephen (20676) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483919)

Read the article. They are complaining that one user may read the content from work and from home, and so count as two users. One might also point out that sometimes two people may use the same computer, and only count as one person.

Re:use cookies? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483967)

I'm glad I didn't waste my time reading such a stupid artical then.

That's like saying a billboard company wants to know the exact number of people that look at their billboard while driving by. Some things just can't be done, what a waste of time.

Oh come on! (4, Insightful)

peterdaly (123554) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484126)

Read the article. They are complaining that one user may read the content from work and from home, and so count as two users. One might also point out that sometimes two people may use the same computer, and only count as one person.

My wife and I both read the same article/section in the newspaper we got yesterday, even though we only got a single paper. (We "logged" 1 impression even though 2 were made.)

I understand that is the opposite of what you suggest, so...

Not only that, but we had some sections delivered to us that we (gasp!) threw out without even reading even though we may have been part of the target demographic. (We "logged" 1 impression even though 0 were made.)

And the web is different how?

-Pete

Re:use cookies? (1)

fleener (140714) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484023)

I always just block your tracking ID cookie and go about my merry way. How do I factor into your statistics?

Re:use cookies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9484073)

Well, if the cookie isn't set, but I already have your IP registered, I just ignore you.
Typically less than 3% of the traffic seems to block cookies, which is an acceptable plus/minus for me, but the is not tech oriented so...

Re:use cookies? (1)

fleener (140714) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484127)

So everytime I visit your web site you log me as a different user. I have a pesky dynamic IP. My DSL provider actually offers me a lower monthly rate for accepting dynamic IP. I bet a lot of people are in that boat.

Re:use cookies? (2, Informative)

cmoney (216557) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484217)

But how dynamic is your IP? Does it change every single time you access a web site? Or is it pretty much stable, changing when you power down your connection? My cable connection hasn't changed IP since 2 months ago when I installed a new router.

Re:use cookies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9484301)

your IP changes every couple of seconds then?

The only problem i've had was my boss uses a dual connection to ensure his network is always online, so his computer would toggle back and forth between two IPs, so he gets registered as 2 users, but I doubt many people have that kind of setup, and the one extra user doesn't matter much.

Cookies? (3, Insightful)

Mz6 (741941) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483702)

Call me oblivious, but wasn't this one of the reasons why cookies were created?

Re:Cookies? (5, Insightful)

howlatthemoon (718490) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483749)

What cookies don't tell you is who the person is, are visitors in the target demographic, are you missing an audience, etc. Of course, that said, I don't want to give that information out to most advertisers.

Re:Cookies? (2, Insightful)

grahamm (8844) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483969)

Why should a web site have "target demographics" anyway? In considering advertising, should the advertising not be made appropriate for the people who do visit rather than the text be made appropriate for the target audience of the advertising?

Re:Cookies? (2, Insightful)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484555)

That would be nice, but the sad fact is that ad-supported corporate media exists to sell more ads, not to provide worthwhile entertainment or information. For example, do you think TV networks care if their shows have any dramatic or artistic merit? Maybe they once did, but the fact that well-written scripted shows are being replaced so heavily by "reality tv" shows they're pretty much just putting on anything they can to reach coveted demographics.

On the other hand, if you're running a website for more altruistic purposes and then decide you need to start using ads to help defray your costs (rather than building the site in the first place in an attempt to make a profit), trying to reach a target demographic is probably the first sign you've completely sold out.

Re:Cookies? (4, Informative)

RetroGeek (206522) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483775)

Call me oblivious, but wasn't this one of the reasons why cookies were created?

Using the Mozilla cookie control, I regularily go through my cookies. Anything that looks like it is coming from an ad site I delete and block.

Any site which I do not recognize gets the same treatment.

I have not had any problems from any site because of this.

Re:Cookies? (1)

cygnusx (193092) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484379)

I've never really understood the paranoia about cookies. It is not very hard to do server-side, cookie-less profiling: they have your IP address and their access log. Any decent data mining solution would give them a site traversal graph for your visits. Plotting multiple site traversal graphs against time would give a pretty good idea whether one or more users were browsing their site from the same IP address. Cross-site profiling is possible by simply sharing access logs.

I don't particularly like it, but Scott McNealy had a point when he said "You have no privacy. Get over it."

Re:Cookies? (1)

ticktockticktock (772894) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484623)

I've never really understood the paranoia about cookies. It is not very hard to do server-side, cookie-less profiling: they have your IP address and their access log. Any decent data mining solution would give them a site traversal graph for your visits. Plotting multiple site traversal graphs against time would give a pretty good idea whether one or more users were browsing their site from the same IP address. Cross-site profiling is possible by simply sharing access logs.

Which would work how well for people on AOL (or any ISP with a transparent proxy) who regularly browse behind their proxies where two requests for content on the same page by the same user could come from different proxy IP addresses?

Re:Cookies? (1, Informative)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484656)

Am I the only person here who uses privoxy [privoxy.org] ?
here is my setup,
Behind a NAT box, with no ports opened.
Use firefox as browser and privoxy as ad filtering proxy server. and zone alarm as FW
I have ad-aware, spybot and grisoft free antivirus, but in last 2 years I haven't had a single trojan/virus/spyware hit me.

Besides using privoxy will save you the trouble of going through your cookies, as it filters almost all of them.
Forget pop-up ads, it even filters in-line ads

Re:Cookies? (1)

ticktockticktock (772894) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484686)

I regularily go through my cookies. Anything that looks like it is coming from an ad site I delete and block


Isn't it easier to just set mozilla to force all cookies to be session cookies, then use the Permit Cookies [mozdev.org] hotkey extension on sites you do want to accept longer lasting cookies from? That way you'll practically have no cookies to prune through since any cookie you didn't use the hotkey to allow would be erased when you close your browser.

Isn't it obvious (3, Insightful)

DecimalThree (524862) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483709)

that is why most online advertising consists of fees based on the 'per click' methodology?

"How can you charge for ads when it's nearly impossible to tell advertisers how many people will see them" --- These people use access logs??

Re:Isn't it obvious (1)

no longer myself (741142) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484020)

These people use access logs??

Glad someone mentioned that. I check mine quite regularly. I see every click and can track every system that connects to my server. I see referring links (although tabbed browers tend to hide the referrer), IP addresses, what they were going after (or failed to get), and when it all happened. There's just too much good information in an access log to ignore it.

Personally I'm not making any attempts at revenue, but if I were ever to advertise goods and/or services via someone's website, I'd insist I see their access logs, even if I had to sign an NDA. That data is going to tell me more about the people seeing the ads than anything else you could come up with.

Review the access logs. They just don't lie.

OK... So when they get 100 000+ unique hits an hour, that's not the most practical, but a simple perl script to snag the high-lights will do nicely as well.

Come to think of it... If they're actually getting that much traffic, you're probably getting your money's worth.

Re:Isn't it obvious (3, Informative)

cshark (673578) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484095)

No.

That's why the standard is per impression CPM (cost per thousand). One user even from home could generate hundreds of impressions if the content is interesting enough, and the pages are chocked full of useful ads!

Per click is another methodology, but until Google came along, it really wasn't the standard on the ad sales end. Still isn't outside of Google and the search engines.

That said, most web sites do know exactly what demographics are visiting their web sites and when. If it's important enough to buy software to do it, and most do, there are several useful software packages that come to mind. Web Trends is the first one I think of. That program in particular actually catches many of the problems described in the article, and it's not unusual. Many such programs have similar functionality.

Honestly, it would have been nice to see them do their home work before writing yet another scare piece.

Re:Isn't it obvious (1)

dustmite (667870) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484599)

That's why the standard is per impression

Um, sorry, forgive me for point this out, but aren't you talking complete rubbish? Most ad affiliate sites (e.g. commission junction) started moving to per-click YEARS ago, and in fact years ago most started dropping even pay-per-click, the "standard" now is pay-per-SALE. I think you're about four years behind here - this all happened just after the dot-com crash. I swear, reading your post was like a flashback to "slashdot '99".

Re:Isn't it obvious (1)

dustmite (667870) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484692)

Oh wait, you talking about advertiser rates?

We don't? (-1, Redundant)

telstar (236404) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483717)

"Most websites have no idea how many people view their content."
  • Umm... Weblogs ... cookies ... IP analysis ... User content contributions.

mmm... (5, Funny)

manavendra (688020) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483736)

I dont know what the real strategy of most online newspaper websites is, but they seem to follow this pattern:

1. Make content available online, free of cost
2. Wait for people to start using and monitor the growth in number of hits
3. Reduce the website response to a crawl with mind numbing popups, flash ads, quick time ads, and generally anything that would make sure the user "spends" more a few minutes on the homepage
4. Wait for most users to go away to some other website.
5. The few braves who remain - force them to register and read all the content, since you want to chart your users by demography.
6. Finally, now make most of the content premium - based upon the data collected in step 5, however inaccurate it is. Flood the site with more ads, if possible
7. Moan and bitch that there is no revenue generated.

8. Repeat cycle

Re:mmm... (2, Insightful)

Mz6 (741941) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483778)

I never really understood the concept behind forcing registration on users. Namely the NYTimes. Granted, I am sure it's for ad revenue, but atleast make it like CNN, MSNBC, etc...

They know that the majority of these registations are bogus. There are even websites dedicated to fooling it. If the people at NYTimes didn't know any better, there are a TON of Mickey Mouses reading their paper.

Re:mmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9484289)

Wait for news.google.com to allow a search of just "-subscription" and they never get a hit again.

Unique identifiers (0, Redundant)

Scoria (264473) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483756)

From the article: 'Most websites have no idea how many people view their content.

They don't employ a unique ID stored within a lightly encrypted cookie, then? Of course, those merely provide a statistic related to the amount of individual computers viewing the Web site, not the amount of people. They obviously fail to account for computers with multiple users, such as household machines and public terminals.

answer (-1, Flamebait)

McAddress (673660) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483768)

from reading /. , it would seem that at least for the pr0n sites, the audience is /. readers.

Editors at Slashdot... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483770)

may think their audience is a bunch of nerds, but in reality its a bunch of suave playboys that get to have sex with many hot women. I suggest they make the appropriate content changes.

Re:Editors at Slashdot... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9484401)

"if they took all the porn off the internet, there'd only be one site left, and it'd be called 'bringbacktheporn.com'"

Uh, No... (5, Insightful)

EvilJohn (17821) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483779)

This is completely backwards. Infact, it's exactly the opposite. It's quite simple to tell how many people view your webpage, and hell of alot easier (and more accurate) than radio or TV.

This is the source of the problem with web advertising, your numbers fairly accurate and based on actual events, not some satistically questionable sampling method. There's little room for fudging.

Demographics on the other hand are a little more complicated. There, you actually have to ask.

---

Re:Uh, No... (1)

JimDabell (42870) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484152)

It's quite simple to tell how many people view your webpage

Please enlighten us.

Re:Uh, No... (4, Insightful)

thogard (43403) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484177)

It's quite simple to tell how many people view your webpage, and hell of alot easier (and more accurate) than radio or TV

No kidding. For the 1st time in the history of advertising since the invention of the shop sign, someone has a direct way to count how many people see the ads and how many of them respond in some positve way. The resutls aren't even close to the typical guesses used in the advertising game to sell ads so they simply say the web stats are wrong and go back to their old ways that say more comercials are good. Too bad the real stats show that consumers are overstaturated and ignore most ads. The problem is that consumers don't buy ads, its the large comapines that buy the ads and they don't know if its going to work or not so the compaines trust the ad providers to provide useful stats and then trust them even it it disagrees with market data. If you think some of the professional software is broken, take a look at real world ads. Some of them run away customers for years. For example Oral-B had anannoying warning sound on an ad for their toothbrushes and I hate it so much I'll never buy one of their products again and that ad ran a decade ago.

I was in a meeting room with a bunch of ad idiots that had just charged the company I worked for about a million dollars to put the www.$COMPANY_NAME.com on the tail end of some well recieved comercials that were about "building brand". They said it would increase our hits a thousand times. I had the logs and said it had increased the sites hits to about 20 times what my personal site got. The idiot then asked me how much I spent on advertising my site. One of my coworkers made some comment about it being millions less than what they charged and that the web hits had only doubled. The team of idiots then told us we must be getting our numbers from an unrelaiable ad auditing source and couldn't deal with the concept that our numbers were from the apache logs.

If all they want is number of hits... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9484538)

1. Promise to quadruple the traffic to a company's site within 24 hours, in exchange for $$

2. Post story regarding stupidity of company's advertising model to slashdot, company's server is slashdotted

3. Profit!!!

Re:Uh, No... (2, Insightful)

grahamm (8844) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484297)

How do you detect if someone is accessing via a proxy (maybe not even knowingly, as some ISPs have 'transparent' proxies) which does not honour the no-cache and similar directives? If such a proxy retrieves the page is there any way of telling if it is then served to 1 or 1000 people?

Re:Uh, No... (1)

dubiousmike (558126) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484484)

yeah - next they will be complaining that they don't know if two people are looking over my shoulder at my monitor.

Web stat tracking, while not perfect is a hell of a lot more effective than Neilson ratings. At the very least Tivo and ReplayTV and the host of Cable companies providing On Demand should have helped to improve tracking.

Exactly what is Neilson ratings good for at this point ?

Re:Uh, No... (2, Informative)

Pionar (620916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484841)

Ok, there's a difference between counting hits and counting visitors. You're wasting money if the same guy sees your ad over and over again, because he'll get desensitized to it and will ignore it after a while. But, you can't tell if those 47 hits from the same ISP is one guy or 47 guys, as he gets a different IP each time he dials in. Is that a unique visitor, or a refresh? Why is this person viewing this one page 12 times?

In short, sure, you can always count quantity using logs, but it's impossible to count quality with them. That's the point.

The other point is it's stupid to display an ad for MS Server 2003 to a person who doesn't deal with that kind of product. Why would Oracle want to display ads to the guy that maintains the Exchange server?

One problem is that right now, a lot of web advertising is hit-and-miss. You pay thousands for "targeted" advertising, just hoping someone who will actually need your product will see the ads.

Relevance and quality is the key in online advertising these days, not how many eyeballs you get. Counting is easy. Analyzing is hard. So, you're backwards, not the article.

Lets show Mr Lamb and the CSM (3, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483783)

I suppose the CSM is about to discover how many slashdotters view the content of this website...

You shouldn't care how many people visit ... (0, Offtopic)

adzoox (615327) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483802)

Advertisers shouldn't care how many people visit.

Here's a good example. The website Xlr8yourmac.com is easiest the single most valuable website to me on the internet. I would imagine it's hit totals are pretty low. That said, it generates a good bit of revenue from advertisers, mainly Other World Computing.

My main website generates traffic through eBay sales and by posting in forums such as this around the internet.

I mention that I have a website in all my ebay winning bidder emails.

I also generate traffic by posting in forums about Apple or Mac Community topics.

Further I have a traffic generating site called JackWhispers that follows Mac Community Scams and provides different perspectives on Macintosh news. I could care less if anyone visits. All I know is that the target IS getting my message or at least finding it in Google.

My traffic to jackwhispers has risen from 400 to about 4000 a month.

I also sell to people here on slashdot - people that post in my journal and see my various postings.

Yahoo geocities premium accounts (as my site is) monitor traffic without cookies (if you want them too)

Re:You shouldn't care how many people visit ... (3, Informative)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483948)

Your first line is that advertisers shouldn't care how many people visit... but then you go on to talk about how you increase traffic to your own website.

If your site uses an ad-supported business model, you (and your advertisers) should care how many people are visiting your site. Advertisers want to spend their money somewhere that they know will be seen.

The Super Bowl charges more for a 30-second spot than your local cable channel; that's because of the sheer number of people that will be watching. If you (and your advertisers) know how many people are visiting the site, then you can put some numbers to your business model - and that's a smart way to run a business.

Re:You shouldn't care how many people visit ... (1)

adzoox (615327) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484222)

Actually I said that you shouldn't care because if you are producing content that YOU KNOW people are reading - your advertisers should care about that fact alone.

The point of the slashdot post is that Neilson ratings are very very inaccurate. Just because a lot of people are viewing the content, does NOT equate into a lot of people getting stuff from the advertisers.

The SuperBowl is NOT a good comparison because in the last 25 or so years the SuperBowl is watched more and more for the advertisements than the game.

Easy (-1, Troll)

inkedmn (462994) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483806)

grep barnyard-midget-porn.html /var/log/apache/access.log | wc -l

there's my hit count.

Re:Easy (5, Interesting)

blowdart (31458) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484012)

While that's almost an amusing troll I've noticed a trend recently where fake referrals are sent to random pages. I would guess this is to boast google page rankings, as some people will publish lists of referring sites on a crawlable page. In the last two weeks a certain canadian IP sent fake referrals for various pages on
  • www.spankarchive.com
  • www.spanking-adult.com
  • www.spanking-porn.com
  • www.spanking-punishment.com
  • www.spankingstories.us
  • www.spankphotos.com
  • www.spankpics.net

Their ISP killed their account after 3 reported strikes.

Then there's em3.net, a scumware site that tried this last year. Following the links triggered attempted spyware downloads.

(If anyone is truely interested I have a partial list at http://idunno.org/misc/referralSpammers.aspx [idunno.org] )

Not So Sure (0, Redundant)

somethinghollow (530478) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483835)

Most hosting services come with tracking tools. My host has tools that will even break down IPs to general locations, I believe. It has so many options that it gets difficult to use. So, if you have a good host, you should be able to find out who uses your site w/o any additional work.

If not, as most have said, set a cookie with a tracking ID. Basically, if you make a website without a decent hit counter (when you need one), you're not much of a web designer / developer. I usually log IPs, user agents, and dates, even though I never look at them. Just in case.

CSM (-1, Flamebait)

rgf71 (448062) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483859)

"Christian Science" Monitor.

Isn't that like... "Act Naturally"? or "Black Light"?

CSM Report: If you pray, your site will get hits. It will get hits because god answered your prayer. If however, you don't get the hits you want, it is due to god's will. He knows what's best for you:)

Re:CSM (2, Insightful)

WoodenRobot (726910) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483984)

The CSM is essentially secular. See the 'about us' [csmonitor.com] pages. Seems that the naming of the CSM was a rather unpopular move by the paper's creator, Mary Baker Eddy - the rest of the staff didn't seem to want to call it that, since it's not really Christian at all...

Page Counter (5, Funny)

Omega1045 (584264) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483863)

I would put a CGI page counter at the bottom of every page. I think the one with flame numbers works the best for this, but the digital looking on also works well.

Re:Page Counter (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484068)

I like the one with the little monkey turning the crank to make the numbers turn forward.

Speaking of monkeys... (1)

Mr. Neutron (3115) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484160)

Alternatively, you could throw in a pop-up box that tricks the user into loading Bonzi Buddy, then count how many angry emails you get from users with Bonzi infest^W installations.

This is a very permanent solution, as after this you no longer have to worry about monitoring traffic to your website.

i just dont care (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483877)

i dont care who looks at my site as long as my statistics page reports more than just me.

Re:i just dont care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9484395)

Oooooooo! I like your attitude and style! You must run an awesome website! Can I advertise on YOUR site?! Pleeeeeeeze?!</sarcasm>

For everything else, there's Anonymous Coward...

You can't: live with it (5, Insightful)

Stephen (20676) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483888)

You can't measure the exact number of human visitors to a website, any more than you can measure the exact number of people who read a magazine. With a magazine, two people may read one magazine. With a website, one person may come from two computers, or two people from one computer. The problem is only that people, especially advertisers, seem to expect that exact numbers are somehow possible. But they really need to match their metrics to the medium, and not try and force the medium to fit print-media analogies.

Anyway, the exact numbers don't really tell you anything. You really need to know the differences between two sub-populations (are visitors from pay-per-click ads or visitors from standard search results more likely to buy?). A program which makes this sort of comparison easy will give you far more insight than one which tries to get the total number of visitors closer to some mythical "true" number.

(I am the author of analog [analog.cx] and CTO of ClickTracks [clicktracks.com] , but I'm writing in a personal capacity).

Relative comparisons over time/section are best (2, Insightful)

tentimestwenty (693290) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484200)

I find the value of web logs is more the relative growth of traffic, or from section to section. Since one can assume relatively the same degree of error each month (i.e. 2 users on the same computer, 1 user on 2 computers, etc.) you can gain a lot of information just by comparing logs over time. The same goes for section by section. If your web site has 5 distinct sections you can compare within them and then over time. Advertisers like to know absolute numbers, but if you can tell them that they'll get 2x if they advertise on a particular portion of your site and it's likely that section gets a certain type of visitor that is very valuable. In the least it gives you some solid direction about what your users want so you can build a better site, and eventually get more ad revenue from it.

HTTP Referrers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483920)

For small sites (weblogs and the like), an analisys of the logs, the IPs you're visited from and the http referrers would give you an approximate snapshot of the average visitor's likes and dislikes. And, what's more: you can back-feed that information to the search engines (via web programming, let it be cgi, php or asp.

So, you track the http referrers that browsers send to your server. You display them, resumed, in your web page. Search engines are feed that information. More people will get to your page due to this backfeed.

That's in theory. Back here in the real world, if you run a weblog, put "g-string" somewhere in your page, "teens" twenty paragraphs later, "15-year-old" forty paragraphs later, and "nude" sixty paragraphs later (about unrelated topics). Just by chance, somebody will visit your page searching for "15-year-old teens in g-string" and that will be backfeed to the search engines. Lather, rinse, repeat. In about two months, paedophiles from all around the world will be visiting your tiny weblog and you'll be sure about that thank to the referrer processing and backfeeding. Guaranteed.

Re:HTTP Referrers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9484519)

Amen!!!

Been there, done that... Learned it the hard way. It should be manditory that ALL personal weblogs MUST use <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="noindex"> in their headers. Blogging software and services should apply that BY DEFAULT. Of course those who are using a weblog for more than just personal pensivities would have the option to disable it, but it should be made less than obvious to keep the self-important douchebags out of the results.

Had I known then what I know now, I could have avoided some of the ugly effects that arose when search results went totally mad.

Just my 2 cents.

Different Methods (-1, Offtopic)

artlu (265391) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483930)

My Website [groupshares.com] uses different methods to atract the audience I want. Specifically, targeted google ads are providing my site much of the needed traffic and I am getting a 1-5% account creation ratio. However, I do get just misc. search engine traffic to the site which i use trackers to analyze.
Just my $0.02.
Aj

GroupShares Inc. [groupshares.com] - A Free and Interactive Stock Market Community

Re:Different Methods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9483999)

Way to pimp your website two times in one post. Maybe you could show a little modesty and put your advertisement into your sig so that we can avoid it? You already got a Ask Slashdot story. Isn't that enough? kthxbye

Holds true for me (5, Interesting)

tuomasr (721846) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483938)

I found this article to be rather insightful. I personally run a small IT/science-news site (in Finnish) and I'm really having a hard time figuring out visitors of the site. Of course I can get some data from the log analyzing software (awstats and webalizer are being used for the site) but it really doesn't tell me what I want. It seems that the website logs don't always tell the truth. For example I'm getting about 20-30 hits a day with a referrer pointing to a site that's a search engine for blogs (${god} knows why the site has been tagged as a blog) but browsing through the actual logs reveal the hits to belong to a indexing-robot of the site that's a little too enthusiastic.

The most reliable way to find out about the visitors on a given site would be a user survey, although not complete as not everyone would fill it out, but it would give an idea about the habits of your most frequent visitors. I, if I were an advertiser, would be interested in more than just number of hits and visits and most advertisers would be baffled by stuff like "we got XXXYYYZZZ HTTP requests last month". Personally I would prefer to advertise on sites with a well-built sense of community and an active userbase that's keen to interact with the website, when I browse a site for the first time or a site that I visit infrequently, I rarely click on banners or ads. I'm more prone to clicking ads on sites which I visit daily or so, it gives me a feeling of supporting the site I like and I just might buy something from the advertiser if they are offering something that I need, therefore focused advertising is the key, hence again you need to know your users.

Logs tell you numbers but you need the visitors themselves to tell you who they really are and how often they visit your site.

Re:Holds true for me (1)

mabu (178417) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484544)

Logs tell you numbers but you need the visitors themselves to tell you who they really are and how often they visit your site.

My feeling is, if you are running any type of commercial entity and you don't know who your target market is, you shouldn't be in business.

awstats, webalizer (0)

Espo_SHIZ (790086) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483941)

http://www.mrunix.net/webalizer/ http://awstats.sourceforge.net/

Banner ads and many sites themselves.... (2, Insightful)

Dagny Taggert (785517) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483958)

...amaze me. I recently helped a friend put together a website for his bakery. Why did he want a website? Because it was something to do that he hadn't done before. Will it drive customers to his place? I doubt it; most small companies like that survive on local ads and word of mouth. I guess my point is that I am still, after all this time, doubtful when it comes to the accuracy of usefulness of ads or site based on visits, click-throughs, etc. I don't think knowledge of the availability of a product is enough; a site must be informative and interactive above and beyond what other forms of advertising can do. While some companies do a great job of this, too many others are like my friend's site---little more than a billboard.

Re:Banner ads and many sites themselves.... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484861)

I've used the website of one local snackgrill back in my hometown many times to check when they are open, and to see whats the number to call 'em to make some pizza beforehand.

as long as it's findable with google by typing the place's name like "jaskan grilli" it will be useful in such occasion if they have their own webpage that ranks high enough on google to be the first occurance of that.

their site is JUST a billboard! BUT THAT'S JUST FRIGGIN PERFECT BECAUSE IT'S A BILLBOARD YOU CAN SEE ON DEMAND FROM YOUR HOME.

web site viewing (1)

loid_void (740416) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483961)

Like television, it's all page views. It's not complicated. It does not matter who viewed, or when, or repeated, or same computer but another person. Eyeballs, a pair of eyeballs come to the page x times a day. This is the number to go with. Now if you have a membership and can get demographics in the sign up form, that is another story.

The most interesting is Alexa's model (3, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483975)

Alexa's model is interesting - they hand out a "free" toolbar that gives you google search, as well as pinging Alexa and showing you every page's Alexa rank.

Unfortunately, the toolbar also slows down your browsing (especially if you're on dialup). And the more tech-savvy a user is, the less likely they are to want that toolbar on their system. Thus tech sites are going to be depressed in those rankings, always.

Alexa also can't tell a subdomain from a regular domain - so subpages of IGN.com or UGO wind up just increasing IGN or UGO's rank, and blogs hosted at X.BlogHost.Com just raise BlogHost.com's rank without being able to tell what the particular blog's rank might be.

Finally, the biggest flaw in Alexa's ranking system is that it's based on voluntary input; rather than finding 'Net users and trying to get a representative sample (which is the goal of the Nielsen TV setup), they take anyone who'll put in their toolbar. Sure, they can get a pretty large number of idiots to install the thing, but they're still idiots - there are demographics that the toolbar just won't get adopted by in that fashion.

The other sad thing is, there are companies that use Alexa's page rankings to decide how much they'll pay for ads. Go figure.

Re:The most interesting is Alexa's model (3, Funny)

Singletoned (619322) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484316)

The other sad thing is, there are companies that use Alexa's page rankings to decide how much they'll pay for ads. Go figure.

Of course, they do. If they find out that a site has a large number of idiots looking at it, they will want to advertise. That's their target audience.

Re:The most interesting is Alexa's model (3, Interesting)

yppiz (574466) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484718)

Moryath writes:
Alexa also can't tell a subdomain from a regular domain - so subpages of IGN.com or UGO wind up just increasing IGN or UGO's rank, and blogs hosted at X.BlogHost.Com just raise BlogHost.com's rank without being able to tell what the particular blog's rank might be.
I wrote much of Alexa's early traffic counting software (I worked there in the late 1990s).

Your description is partly right. Alexa "rolls up" clicks on subdomains into the doman. So clicks on www1.foo.com, www2.foo.com, and www3.foo.com all count towards foo.com.

Alexa does this primarily to deal with site mirrors, but also because some sites create subdomains for various functions related to serving pages. So someone interested in Google's overall popularity might prefer to see gmail.google.com, news.google.com, and www.google.com as one site, and not three.

That said, the site counting software has (or at least had, I don't know if this is still true) rules for detecting home pages as stats-worthy sites independent of their domains. For instance, any URL with a tilde after the domain, like www.foo.com/~bar, has its own statistics. Similarly, there are special rules for recognizing "home pages" on domains like AOL and other big ISPs.

It's a huge problem deciding what people consider to be websites - it borders on serious AI. For instance, is each Sourceforge project a separate site? How about several subdirectories off of someone's home page, each with a very different focus?

If you think that your favorite domain should be divided into sites, and that it isn't happening correctly in the Alexa toolbar, you might try sending email to Alexa and asking them to take a look.

Finally, the biggest flaw in Alexa's ranking system is that it's based on voluntary input; rather than finding 'Net users and trying to get a representative sample (which is the goal of the Nielsen TV setup), they take anyone who'll put in their toolbar. Sure, they can get a pretty large number of idiots to install the thing, but they're still idiots - there are demographics that the toolbar just won't get adopted by in that fashion.
I am not familiar with Neilsen's current methodology, but I was unimpressed by their marketing claims when they first started their web metrics. At the time (late 1990s) I believe they were saying they had a representative sample of the internet, even though their sample size was: 1) tiny, and 2) made up of volunteers. I cannot say what goes on in Neilsen, or any other web ratings company, currently, but while companies may have very careful statisticians on the inside, often, the caveats and possible biases get stripped out by the marketing department. The moral of this story is, assume that any web rating (or television rating, for that matter) is biased, and understand those biases as well as you can.

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

Webalizer, cookies, stats (3, Interesting)

Lord Zerrr (237123) | more than 10 years ago | (#9483976)

I use webalizer, cookies, and a two stats packages for my cms system (geeklog). One stats package only admin has privalige to, which gives me very detailed acurate info such as time, ip, which page viewed, referers, UID (user id), links followed, country browser, platform ect. All open source. Does the job for me.

Speaking as a Sprout (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484003)

Most websites have no idea how many people view their content

We normally use our leaves to view content. Hope this helps the analysis.

This isn't rocket science! (4, Insightful)

peterdaly (123554) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484006)

Tracking unique visitors?
Not that hard if small margin of error is ok.

Charging for ads when you don't know how many page views you will get?
What about CPM (cost per 1k impression) rates? Want 10k impressions? Pay for 10k impressions.

Target demographics?
How about track what article topics are popular, how many return readers per topic, etc?

These are not that hard to do with the right people. The guy who writes the "techie column" in many cases is not the right person.

I guess if you think like a newspaper, you end up with these problems seeming impossible to figure out.

Have I lost my marbles, or is this really not that hard?

-Pete

yeah (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484076)

From the article: 'Most websites have no idea how many people view their content. This inherent fuzziness is causing problems for commercial websites, especially online publications desperate to make money from Internet advertising... How can you charge for ads when it's nearly impossible to tell advertisers how many people will see them?'

Well, websites can just do things to make up numbers. Dead tree publications do it all the time. Ever notice how the the nation's most popular newspaper [usatoday.com] is probably so popular because almost every hotel room in the US has one at the hotel door in the morning (where it is most likely then placed in the trash). I would bet that its much easier to figure out how many people are actually reading what on a website vs any other medium.

My guess for him would be ... (-1, Flamebait)

hayden (9724) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484090)

Really, really gullible people.

Hell. Who else would believe that the world was created in seven days and there is an all powerful being that created life, the universe and everything and is really, REALLY concerned about me prostating myself infront of it on a regular basis.

For all those who believe the Christian "Science" crap:

Suppose that a thousand years from now, the only record anyone has of the existence of a place called 'Kansas' is in the form of an old book and a couple of ancient film reels describing the improbable adventures of a young girl from this mythical place. Now suppose that a team of archaeolgists digging around in the Great Plains finds an old road sign that, when it is translated our of the archaic language called 'English,' reads 'Welcome to Kansas.' This can only mean one thing ...

Every word in the ancient epic called The Wizard of Oz is absolutely true!

Think about it. Please.

performance based advertising (1)

dcbprangins (774845) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484110)

> This inherent fuzziness is causing problems for commercial websites, especially online publications desperate to make money from Internet advertising... How can you charge for ads when it's nearly impossible to tell advertisers how many people will see them?' Then use performance based advertising - such as cj.com (or buyat.co.uk in the UK). You don't have to sell CPM (ie clicks) but instead get paid on results (eg. sales generated). This solution has been around for a long long time.

After careful review (2, Funny)

Joe U (443617) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484180)

After careful review of our target audience, we have have begun work on our new bulk Prozac and Lithium banner ad campaign.

Look at search engine references (1)

SnappingTurtle (688331) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484197)

Back when idocs.com [idocs.com] was my hope for a rich future, I used to keep a sharp eye on the referer lines in my web log. I even wrote some nice perl scripts to summarize what searches people were doing to find me.

One time the summarizer displayed a search string that consisted solely of pornographic terms: "pussy", "fuck", and the like. I was pretty confused because my site is just an HTML guide. Turns out it found me because of the word "maypole"... I still have no idea what that means in a porn context.

I wish Internet advertisers would learn... (4, Insightful)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484267)

I'm not going to click on your banner. Nope. Not a chance. Not happening.

It's not that I'm not interested in your product. Online adverts I see actually tend to be:

1. Something unavailable to me (wrong country).
2. Something of no interest to me.
3. Something I own already (this happens a _lot_ with Gamespy).

But that's not the point. The point is, I'm at the web site because I'm looking for something, and it's probably not your product. When watching TV, I never watch an advert, and immediately decide to research/buy that product. At best I'll make a mental note to have a look out for information on it later, in most cases I won't think about it until I'm looking for that kind of product, at which point I'll probably remember your advert.

An example might be easier. I frequently see adverts for car insurance. I don't drive, for a variety of reasons, but if I was going to learn and buy a car, I'd probably start calling around the companies whose names I remembered from adverts. Well, actually I'd Google for a comparison site, but lets pretend I'm too lazy to do that, okay?

Oh, also, pop-ups/unders are a really good way of persuading me to avoid your company, your advertiser, and whatever site I got the pop-up/under from.

Re:I wish Internet advertisers would learn... (3, Insightful)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484342)

Oh, while I'm on a roll (just mod me offtopic, I'm ranting here)...

If I'm on your site, you have my attention. Stop trying to get my attention with fancy tricks that break my browser or talk half an hour to download.

Don't resize my browser. If I wanted my browser window to fill the screen, I'd be resized it myself. Equally, if I wanted a poky little window that happens to perfectly fit your site, I can grab that little resize widget myself. It's not like you're saving me effort, as I have to then resize the window back again later.

Don't tell me your site won't work with my browser. Let me try. Chances are, you've mis-detected my browser, and/or haven't tested in three years, and it'll work just fine if you let me in.

Okay, going to go get some actual work done now.

Mind boggling stupidity (3, Insightful)

danharan (714822) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484344)

Who cares about demographics? We're trying to figure out what people's interests are, what types of ads they'll respond to.

Well, duh. If a visitor looks at the sports pages during work hours, you have a fair deal of information about that person already. Isn't that already enough to serve up ads that would likely be relevant?

If these dead-tree publishers of yesterday's news got a clue, they might also realize that web-ads are actionable, and actions can be counted. Do people click on the ads? Do they generate leads or sales? There's this interesting industry called affiliate marketing they should look into (my guess is they'd make good money off personals and job ads).

What they read, when they read it, and what ads they want to learn more about. WTF more do they need?

advertising (2, Insightful)

mabu (178417) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484405)

For those who haven't figured it out already, the web is not an advertising medium. Yes, you can find people who will pay for advertising, but it's a peripheral and unimportant element of the service.

Hasn't the dot-com-bust taught us anything? Revenue models based on advertising are not going to work except for the rare few who have market share and a steady stream of gullible businesses that want to cheat and try to buy an audience instead of building one.

Anyone who needs to know how many people are on his/her site and their nature, will already know, and will already have things in place to measure and qualify this. The most obvious of which is sales of their products/services. Traffic reports are amusing but otherwise irrelevent unless you're in the business of selling traffic reports (like Nielsen - another bottom feeder that is providing a crutch to businesses in an effort to continue to perpetuate the myth that online advertising is worthwhile).

Earing the right to count your visitors (2, Insightful)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484557)

This is all about earning the right to count your visitors.

There is NO WAY I am going to spend time giving up my privacy and demographic information if the site has not earned the right to waste my time.

When you walk into any store in the mall there is a small laser that is counting foot traffic. Each person or close walking couple breaks the beam once to enter and once to exit. It isn't precise, but it is close enough and further the store EARNED THE RIGHT to count visitors becuase there is a reward - viewing the merchandise. Plus, there is a very low cost (exposure to a low powered laser).

Compare this to a website that would require you to fill out a form, presumably with valid info (the article mentions 90210 as the most popular zip code on the web), and THEN you get to see the content. No thanks. potentially valuable content not worth the bother.

Now if there was some technology [slashdot.org] that would allow you to store this reader profile and it would be transmitted when you visited a website without the need to fillout a form, I bet some people would use it.

But no one wants to give their drivers license to the GAP store clerk before entering and there will never be a time that, no matter how valuable it would be for a web site owner, people provide valid, accurate data on who they are to view site content that has not earned the right to ask for that information.

How to track? Use Google AdSense (3, Insightful)

Goldenhawk (242867) | more than 10 years ago | (#9484748)

I have been pondering the same issue for quite some time, as my business depends heavily on internet traffic. I've found one of the best ways to both track traffic, and benefit from it, is the Google AdSense [google.com] program.

With a relatively compact bit of javascript embedded into a page, the user gets hopefully relevant ads that are not obtrusive or flashy, same as the Google Adwords text-only ads you see on the right side of the Google results pages. And you can customize the colors and format to suit your own pages. Google, while they do serve the ads based on your site's content, do allow you to prohibit certain keywords, so you can block out competitors' ads.

To make it useful to the host, Google allows you to create "channels", so within one AdSense account you can track different pages. You can get a detailed report of how many pageviews each channel generates, as well as click-thrus (which of course leave your site).

To sweeten the deal, you get paid for click thrus. That means you get paid when someone leaves your site, but my philosophy is that if they do that, they weren't planning on sticking around anyway, so I might as well profit from it.

In my case, my site generates about 3000 pageviews and 15 clickthrus, and that translates into about $1 a day in revenue. It's not much, but I roll that back into the Google AdWords [google.com] campaigns that I run, which generate inbound traffic. I'd rather have people coming to my site that want to be here, than those that don't, so I see it as a fair trade.

And in the end, the reporting and tracking are handled by Google, and provide a tangible benefit to my business.

Oh, and if you want to see an example in operation, look at the very bottom of our site's main page [worship-live.com] .

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>